[Official] Italian Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[Adam43]

It’s everything we hope 10-10ths isn’t.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hence the decisions should be documented and subject to appeal.

Both of which are, plus the reasoning behind their decisions. If you look on the FIA's website, both during and after the various sessions and the race itself, the FIA updates the website with all the documents that are issued including observations of what may have transpired. These are then emailed to the relevant teams.

When any penalties have been applied, the email also includes a statement to the effect that the Stewards decisions can be appealed.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Austria: inside guy gets punished.
Monza: Outside guy gets punished.

It's obviously not completely comparable, but the verdict is the exact opposite, not even middle of the road.

As I wrote on one of the threads yesterday, attitudes of the Stewards will be different depending on whether the overtaking move is on the inside or the outside of a corner or chicane.

More emphasis will be placed on the front driver on an inside move, and conversely, more attention to the overtaking car in an outside move.

I would contend, having raced for about 5 years, that on a normal inside overtaking manoeuvrer, and I am not talking about an outright banzai dive by the following driver, then the lead driver needs to ensure that he gives adequate space to the overtaker or actually concedes the corner, whilst in an outside move, the following driver needs to ensure that the lead car has racing room.

That is why Stewards might give different verdicts on any incident.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Personally, I think there doing quite a good job and improving lately. They generally have to work with rules that I mostly, but not completely agree with for reasons explained earlier. In this case however I feel the verdict is quite bizarre and as said, does provide an extremely undesirable precedent.



The explanation of the for the penalty reads:
“Car 44 [Hamilton] was exiting the pits. Car 33 [Verstappen] was on the main straight. At the 50m board before Turn 1, car 44 was significantly ahead of car 33.

“Car 33 braked late and started to move alongside car 44, although at no point in the sequence does car 33 get any further forward than just behind the front wheel of car 44."

Yes, the exact same section of the explanation given by the Stewards for the Monza incident.

Do you see what I'm saying? Everyone in the paddock and everyone on this forum would have called it a bizarre verdict. However, just because Verstappen was on the outside (starting on the race line BTW), this verdict is supposed to be logical?

The very undesirable precedent set by this verdict is thus in stead of protect the more vulnerable guy (the one on the outside), this verdict does the exact opposite and poses even stricter criteria on the outside car.

They just should've called it a racing incident and everyone would've been fine with it and it wouldn't have set such a wrong precedent.



Also compare it to the Perez Leclerc incident in Austria and especially look at the relative wheel positions at the apex and on the exit, it's almost an exact copy regarding their wheel positions: https://youtu.be/Dm4ZmUHdXUs?t=38

Austria: inside guy gets punished.
Monza: Outside guy gets punished.

It's obviously not completely comparable, but the verdict is the exact opposite, not even middle of the road.

I've extracted some because its not central to the point you all need to understand'

You ask the question why are the decisions so different?
Its because every decision is made on the merits or otherwise of the incident.
That's why there is an comment on reports the the decision is based on the actual incident without regard to outcomes.

You talk about setting precedents, but you should understand that this is a judicial system, NOT a legal system.
There are NO precedents taken into account in the judgements.
One decision does not impact on all decisions ad infinitum'

You can present as many prima facie accounts and examples as you wish but none of that impacts on the decision regarding that particular incident.
That is why Red Bull's appeal on Silverstone went nowhere. It had to be fresh evidence that altered the information used in the original decision'

The FIA judicial system is to judge racing incidents across all ASN's that use their systems and principles and are affiliated with the FIA.


Adding precedents and textbook law would add impossible cost and argument to the process. Fans can argue forever but the published decisions are what they are based on each individual incident with the information the stewards have at their disposal and with hearings with the individuals involved.

They talked to both drivers, probably separately and they had their input to consider as well as every camera angle including the one presented by chillibowl.

I don't need to comment on that because I've already said as much in earlier posts.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I've extracted some because its not central to the point you all need to understand'

You ask the question why are the decisions so different?
Its because every decision is made on the merits or otherwise of the incident.
That's why there is an comment on reports the the decision is based on the actual incident without regard to outcomes.

You talk about setting precedents, but you should understand that this is a judicial system, NOT a legal system.
There are NO precedents taken into account in the judgements.
One decision does not impact on all decisions ad infinitum'

You can present as many prima facie accounts and examples as you wish but none of that impacts on the decision regarding that particular incident.
That is why Red Bull's appeal on Silverstone went nowhere. It had to be fresh evidence that altered the information used in the original decision'

The FIA judicial system is to judge racing incidents across all ASN's that use their systems and principles and are affiliated with the FIA.


Adding precedents and textbook law would add impossible cost and argument to the process. Fans can argue forever but the published decisions are what they are based on each individual incident with the information the stewards have at their disposal and with hearings with the individuals involved.

They talked to both drivers, probably separately and they had their input to consider as well as every camera angle including the one presented by chillibowl.

I don't need to comment on that because I've already said as much in earlier posts.

I'm not sure this is actually correct. In a recent controversy the FIA felt the need to explain more about how the stewarding works. In this explanation it was indicated that the stewards have at their disposal, at a touch of a button, thousands of videos of similar cases and their ruling.


So in that light it most definitely does create a precedent. Otherwise this video resource would not need to be queried.


I'll try to look it up. If I can find it.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I'm not sure this is actually correct. In a recent controversy the FIA felt the need to explain more about how the stewarding works. In this explanation it was indicated that the stewards have at their disposal, at a touch of a button, thousands of videos of similar cases and their ruling.


So in that light it most definitely does create a precedent. Otherwise this video resource would not need to be queried.


I'll try to look it up. If I can find it.

I haven't been able to find the article, so apologies for not being able to back it up. Let me then say this, prior judgements do stick in the heads of the drivers as such are a precedent in that way anyway.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Cut down your post for brevity, but I'll explain what I think you are missing in your reading of the verdict.
The description of entry into and through the T1 braking zone is setting up the situation for T2. It is the action(s) during T2 that the penalty was applied to.

The reference to T1 positions is (I think) to explain why 33's defence 'Car 44 opening the steering after Turn 1 and “squeezing” him to the apex of turn 2' does not hold up as sufficient reason for Car 33 to be given room on the inside of T2.

So in effect, it is the car on the inside that has been penalised - but for causing a collision, not for failing to leave room. They refer to Car 44's position (in T2) as being reasonable and that Car 33's manoeuvre was too late (in T1) to jutify racing room in T2.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As I wrote on one of the threads yesterday, attitudes of the Stewards will be different depending on whether the overtaking move is on the inside or the outside of a corner or chicane.

More emphasis will be placed on the front driver on an inside move, and conversely, more attention to the overtaking car in an outside move.

I would contend, having raced for about 5 years, that on a normal inside overtaking manoeuvrer, and I am not talking about an outright banzai dive by the following driver, then the lead driver needs to ensure that he gives adequate space to the overtaker or actually concedes the corner, whilst in an outside move, the following driver needs to ensure that the lead car has racing room.

That is why Stewards might give different verdicts on any incident.

I get that it is the case now. What I'm saying is, that not only having the outside guy physically more challenged (centrifugal force not on his side and neither the gravel traps), but also giving preference to the inside guy in ruling, you are really putting the outside guy in a bad spot. To have wheel to wheel racing, which I think most of us do like, you do need an outside guy.

Next year we have aero regulations that allow cars to stay much closer to each other in and around corners. DRS zones will probably be shortened and more overtaking will have to be done in and around those corners with drivers needing to set up their wheel to wheel manoeuvres over multiple corners (like they had to do pre-DRS). I fear the current generation of drivers are not really up to the task to be honest. How often have we not seen the outside guy being pushed or shuffed wide and the fight being ended in just one corner in stead of seeing a wheel to wheel fight endure over multiple corners?

Leclerc-Hamilton Monza 2019?
Verstappen-Leclerc Austra 2019
Hamilton-Albon Brasil 2019
Hamilton-Albon Austria 2020
Verstappen-Hamilton Barcelona 2020
Verstappen-Hamilton Imola 2021 (although bit more complex)
Norris-Perez Austria 2021 T1
Hamilton-Verstappen Silverstone 2021
Norris-Perez Zandvoort 2021
Norris-Perez Austria T4
Verstappen-Hamilton Monza T4
Ocon-Vettel Monza T4

Just a list from the top of my head, many more of course.

I find an overtake done over multiple corners much more satisfying to watch than a DRS one. However you do need two cars to tango and I'm afraid that with the current driving standards and the ruling not convincing them otherwise, we might still see much more of the latter.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Next year we have aero regulations that allow cars to stay much closer to each other in and around corners. DRS zones will probably be shortened and more overtaking will have to be done in and around those corners with drivers needing to set up their wheel to wheel manoeuvres over multiple corners (like they had to do pre-DRS). I fear the current generation of drivers are not really up to the task to be honest. How often have we not seen the outside guy being pushed or shuffed wide and the fight being ended in just one corner in stead of seeing a wheel to wheel fight endure over multiple corners?

Leclerc-Hamilton Monza 2019?
Verstappen-Leclerc Austra 2019
Hamilton-Albon Brasil 2019
Hamilton-Albon Austria 2020
Verstappen-Hamilton Barcelona 2020
Verstappen-Hamilton Imola 2021 (although bit more complex)
Norris-Perez Austria 2021 T1
Hamilton-Verstappen Silverstone 2021
Norris-Perez Zandvoort 2021
Norris-Perez Austria T4
Verstappen-Hamilton Monza T4
Ocon-Vettel Monza T4

Just a list from the top of my head, many more of course.

I find an overtake done over multiple corners much more satisfying to watch than a DRS one. However you do need two cars to tango and I'm afraid that with the current driving standards and the ruling not convincing them otherwise, we might still see much more of the latter.

Great post Taxi.

The only way to solve the problem in my book is by going back to the rule where if any part of the car is alongside yours you have to leave a car's width for the other driver.

Failing that, practically any side by side action in a corner will result in "a racing incident", which is not the desired outcome.

[Adam43]

“going back to”?

[wnut]

This Adam

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In the context of this discussion, I think it is interesting to look at what has been removed from the regulation.

Up until 2017, the F1 Sporting Regulations contained the following statement:
'Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a ‘significant portion’.'

This sat alongside the ISC that included:
'Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.'

So if we were to look at an incident in the 2016 season, it seems to be that a driver can use the full track width unless another car has their front wing alongside your rear wheel (or further) up until the braking zone, at which point regardless of where another car is, if you are moving back to the racing line you have to leave a full car width.

From 2018 onwards, the definition of alongside was removed from the F1 Sporting Regulations at the same time as 'causing a collision' was added to the ISC. The effect of this is that it is now the judgement of the Stewards as to whether an attacking driver is far enough alongside that the defending driver is deemed to have caused the collision (if one occurs).

So looking at the recent T2 incident at Monza - the Stewards have determined that Verstappen was not far enough alongside going into T1 (as mentioned in their decision) and therefore Hamilton was not (predominantly) at fault for the collision in T2.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision, but I can see how it was logically reached under the current regulations.


EDIT: - lifted from another thread, I wonder if this is part of why the definition of alongside was removed because it was not situation-dependent?

[Adam43]

Thanks. I didn’t know what was specifically being referred to.

Although that is specifically on the straights. Effectively you still can’t remove that space on the straight if the car is alongside.

In that specific situation in the pre 2018 I don’t see that it’s really changed.

But I wasn’t aware of the exact wording pre and post the change.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

Great post Taxi.

The only way to solve the problem in my book is by going back to the rule where if any part of the car is alongside yours you have to leave a car's width for the other driver.

Failing that, practically any side by side action in a corner will result in "a racing incident", which is not the desired outcome.

Maybe.
But if that was the case then Silverstone at Copse would have been Max's fault.
I'm only mentioning it as example of a situation that would have a completely different face on it, not because I want another protracted discussion on Hamilton vs Max.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Maybe.
But if that was the case then Silverstone at Copse would have been Max's fault.
I'm only mentioning it as example of a situation that would have a completely different face on it, not because I want another protracted discussion on Hamilton vs Max.

Max had left a car's width on the inside, and Lewis missed the apex, so no, it would still be Lewis's fault. Hamilton also completed overtakes with less room left at Copse later in the race, so no it was his fault based on this.

The point is moot however, this was not the law at Silverstone.

The law should be: If there is any portion of a car alongside you, you will leave a car's width between you and the edge of the circuit.

Yes is will compromise your racing line.

The stewards problem will be whether it was a desperate dive that just resulted in a collision or the car was legitimately alongside.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by wnut

The stewards problem will be whether it was a desperate dive that just resulted in a collision or the car was legitimately alongside.

So then the rules would need to differentiate between these two in such a way as to allow the stewards to consistently allow for the latter but not the former. How would you suggest doing that?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

So then the rules would need to differentiate between these two in such a way as to allow the stewards to consistently allow for the latter but not the former. How would you suggest doing that?

Maybe make it a penalty to 'cause a collision'?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Maybe make it a penalty to 'cause a collision'?

That would do it! Phew, I’m glad we sorted that one out

[dsg]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Maybe make it a penalty to 'cause a collision'?

Such as not turning in on a car when part of it is alongside? Wouldn't that be causing the collision? That would probably mean Hamilton would be deemed to be at fault in the Monza incident.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by wnut

The only way to solve the problem in my book is by going back to the rule where if any part of the car is alongside yours you have to leave a car's width for the other driver.

Halleluia! A workable rule compressed into one sentence.

I've been saying the same for years. However F1 has proved very resistant to any solid rules dictating the giving of space. Just like they won't come out and say drivers must drive only on the track. Instead they have all sorts of mealy-mouthed options of two wheels on the first kerb, or the second kerb, or the green paint, or the astroturf, or maybe four wheels, or, or, or.

[S griffin]

That’s part of the problem, the FIA are never 100% clear on guidelines. And then there’s the whole track limits argument, which is never consistent, as they seem to let some get away with it more than others